Former Gov. John Rowland questions whether prosecutors denied him evidence and says he deserves a new trial.

Former Gov. John G. Rowland on Friday raised questions about whether his prosecutors systematically denied him evidence he could have used to defend himself last fall from campaign corruption charges and said he intends to seek a new trial.

Rowland's criticism was expected and it followed the unsealing a day earlier of a sworn affidavit claiming that Rowland co-conspirator and former Congressional candidate Lisa Wilson-Foley provided the government with information that supported Rowland's defense at his trial last fall. The affidavit was prepared by Wilson-Foley's attorney, Craig A. Raabe of Hartford.

In a detailed, written argument filed Friday in U.S. District Court, Rowland's lawyers embrace the affidavit and contend that prosecutors failed in their legal obligation to disclose the information it contains, denying him the opportunity to effectively defend himself.

"Far from narrowing the issues before the Court, as predicted by the Government, the Raabe Affidavit broadens them," wrote lead Rowland defense lawyer Reid H. Weingarten. "It shows that further discovery and a hearing are necessary to assess the extent of the deficiencies in the Government's disclosures. Even standing alone, the Raabe Affidavit's disclosures are sufficient to warrant a new trial."

Almost daily, as the parties to the Rowland case file new legal papers with the court, they seem to move farther apart in their dispute over the evidence.

Raabe's affidavit suggests that when Wilson-Foley gave prosecutors information that conflicted with their theory of Rowland's crime, the prosecutors dismissed it The prosecutors deny that suggestion. They have said they disclosed virtually all of the evidence they had to Rowland and have "no record or recollection" of the information listed in Raabe's affidavit.

A federal judge has unsealed an affidavit in former Gov. John G. Rowland's ongoing campaign fraud case that Rowland is expected to use to support his contention that prosecutors failed to disclose or misrepresented evidence bolstering his claim of innocence.

The affidavit was prepared by Hartford...

(EDMUND H. MAHONY)

Rowland, in his filing Friday, asked U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton to hold a hearing on the question of withheld evidence, raising the possibility of more than a half-dozen defense lawyers and prosecutors being ordered to court and testifying under oath about what they told one another during a year or more of discussions.

The Rowland lawyers also asked for a search of prosecution offices for materials that Rowland should have — but may not have — received. And they asked to be allowed to review notes made by other lawyers during meetings with members of the prosecution team.

The disagreement provoked by former Gov. John G. Rowland's suggestion that prosecutors withheld evidence at his campaign fraud trial escalated Monday when one of Rowland's co-conspirators said she has independently made notes of discussions with prosecutors that support the former governor's position.

...

The disagreement provoked by former Gov. John G. Rowland's suggestion that prosecutors withheld evidence at his campaign fraud trial escalated Monday when one of Rowland's co-conspirators said she has independently made notes of discussions with prosecutors that support the former governor's position.

... (EDMUND H. MAHONY)

Arterton has not indicated how she will resolve the issue. Several lawyers said she could rule that there is no need for a hearing because the disputed evidence would not have been sufficient for Rowland to avoid conviction at his trial in September on four felony and two misdemeanor charges.

Rowland's sentencing — he faces a likely sentence of 37 to 46 months in prison — has been postponed while arguments over disputed evidence play out.

Rowland, Wilson-Foley and her husband, Brian Foley, owner of the Apple Rehab nursing home chain, have been convicted of conspiring to violate federal campaign reporting law during Wilson-Foley's unsuccessful run for Congress in 2012. The two Foleys pleaded guilty and Brian Foley was the government's chief witness at Rowland's trial.

Under the government's view of the case, the Foleys and Rowland conspired to conceal Rowland's paid work as a top adviser to the campaign by using a sham contract with Apple to pay him a $5,000 a monthly consulting fee. All three were charged with violating campaign law by failing to publicly report Rowland's salary as a campaign expenditure.

Wilson-Foley and her attorney assert that she repeatedly told federal prosecutors she was initially unaware that she was breaking the law. She claims to have been persuaded by her husband that Rowland was doing valuable work for Apple and that his campaign work was voluntary, meaning it was exempt from federal campaign reporting requirements, according to court filings.

According to Raabe's affidavit, Foley told the prosecutors he led his wife to believe that Rowland's consulting contract with Apple was valid and that he was providing a valuable service to the nursing home chain.

Rowland argued essentially the same thing at his trial.

The disagreement with prosecutors began with a March 2014 meeting at which Wilson-Foley told prosecutors for the first time that she initially was unaware she was involved in a campaign conspiracy. In subsequent conversations with prosecutors, Raabe repeated the point, according to information presented in court.

Raabe was not present at the March meeting. He said in the affidavit that prosecutors pressed to meet on a day he was obligated to be in court elsewhere. But three other defense lawyers attended — one from Raabe's firm, representing Wilson-Foley, and two lawyers from a different firm representing Brian Foley, Hubert Santos and Jessica Santos. Raabe suggests that at least two of the three lawyers took contemporaneous notes.

Raabe has said in legal papers that, when he repeated Wilson-Foley's version of events during later meetings with prosecutors, he made notes of his own.

Rowland's lawyers asked Friday to be allowed to review all the notes.

When Wilson-Foley met with prosecutors in March, according to the affidavit, she had been told she would not be charged. But prosecutors charged her with misdemeanor conspiracy when she repeatedly refused to characterize the Rowland contract with Apple a "sham," according to the affidavit.

"When Ms. Wilson-Foley offered an account that did not comport to the Government's theory of the case, however, the Government reneged on that deal and insisted that Ms. Wilson-Foley also plead to a misdemeanor," Rowland's lawyers wrote in their court filing Friday.

According to the affidavit, Wilson-Foley learned late in the conspiracy that the contract was a fraud and agreed to plead guilty. Prosecutors are pressing for a 10-month sentence. Her sentencing also has been postponed while Arterton sorts through the dispute over evidence.